/m/congress

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I'm not sure Bitter Mouse is "above" talking politics (isn't he one of the more prolific posters in politics threads?). I think he's just referencing the ongoing project the administrators have of creating separate venues to discuss politics and baseball, which seems like a sane policy.

Wait is that what Morty was talking about? I totally misread his post then. I thought he was referencing the stem cell debate and worrying about where that was going.

Darn, I never know what that guy is talking about - even when I am sure he is wrong :). But if he is talking about going OT versus normal baseball talk, then well I would rewrite my scorn in a new direction, but I am too lazy. But yeah Greg is right on, so now I don't have to bother.

WHat ever happened to the site redesign? I am OK either way, I just have not heard anythign about it in a while.

I have told my children (and ex) to do whatever with my mortal remains (since I am done with them), and then have come up with some pretty funny and gruesome (many of which are illegal I am sure) ideas - so I am not sure I am a go to source for how to treat human remains (and related meat) with respect.

Morty - As for #57 I am often grateful your word salad is gibberish to me, I suspect this is one such case.

I don't know why they can't just enact regulations so that they only fertilize as many eggs as they intend to implant.

I am going to take a random guess and assume you haven't gone through an IVF procedure. The reason regulations like that cannot be enacted is because every fertilized egg does not develop correctly, which is nothing on the fact that not every egg actually fertilizes. Trust me on this one - what you are suggesting is never, ever going to happen.

Nothing like getting a call saying of the 14 eggs harvested every single one failed to fertilize. Eggs which your wife just went through a very emotionally draining and hormonally ###### up 6 weeks or so to produce, after years of failing to become pregnant through other methods. Awesome feeling.

I am excited for the next Cap movie. The first one was great for this fanboy.

Not a fan of superhero movies based on established characters (as opposed to things like Special, Super, The Specials, etc.), but I made an exception & rented the Cap flick based not only on my high regard for the character but also for the presence of the Howling Commandos (minus, alas, Sgt. Fury ... can't have everything, I guess). I liked it a lot.

The same moral system that says we don't use dead humans as food for animals, b/c hey, they're dead, why waste the meat.

In life-or-death situations, like this one, taboos about that sort of stuff go out the window. Here is a response by the late Father Stephen F. Torraco, a professor at Assumption College, to a question about the morality of cannibalism, in which he concluded that in "the extreme case of the danger of death" it was "a morally justified measure", so long as the individuals to be consumed "die of natural causes and are not murdered for the sake of consuming them". So why should it be different with people who face imminent death from Parkinson's or Huntington's Chorea, rather than starvation? Why would you oppose something like this and not, say, infant organ donation?

Except the discarded embryos aren't disposed of with any great respect,

That's wrong.

They're treated as medical waste. Which means that the majority of them are piled into boxes or bins with other typed of medical waste (amputated tissue, contaminated gauze and bandages, used syringes, etc.) and taken to an incinerator, where the melange of items is placed on a conveyor belt and burned. The energy from combustion is sometimes used to generate electricity. Anything that's left after that is considered to be sterile (though some places also apply chemical treatments), so it can be transported to a landfill and buried with normal garbage.

I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't consider that treatment to be particularly respectful, if we were talking about the corpse of an actual human being.

I am excited for the next Cap movie. The first one was great for this fanboy.

Major Captain America fan here (Have every Cap comic since 1985). The first one was OK, I just wish that the comic book companies would get away from origin stories, there is no more need for them than there is for origin stories for a Die Hard movie. If the origin story is particularly good, then I can see wasting 30 minutes of the film to get it out there, but for something as simple as Cap's origin, a 5 minute flashback in middle of the movie is good enough.

I am excited for the next movie also.

I thought it was fun. Not great. I dug Avengers, and am maybe the only person alive who enjoyed the Hulk films. But I went into the with low expectations, and was unbothered by the CGI.

The Avengers showed that the Hulk could work in a movie, if they would just not waste their time with the plodding story and go and have fun with this creature. He's Jeckyll and Hyde, we get it... Now show him smashing stuff, and make sure it's an unambivalent badguy.

Not a fan of superhero movies based on established characters (as opposed to things like Special, Super, The Specials, etc.), but I made an exception & rented the Cap flick based not only on my high regard for the character but also for the presence of the Howling Commandos (minus, alas, Sgt. Fury ... can't have everything, I guess). I liked it a lot.

Once the movie got going, I was very happy with it. I was even happy with the origin story, I just thought that it cut into the ability of the movie to show Cap at his greatest.

My run starts with #216, so ...1977. Though I have the first 15 issues or so of the 2004 Brubaker series (which I found intriguingly overrated, & of course don't get me started on the Winter Soldier nonsense) in collected form only.

My run starts with #216, so ...1977. Though I have the first 15 issues or so of the 2004 Brubaker series (which I found intriguingly overrated, & of course don't get me started on the Winter Soldier nonsense) in collected form only.

Now I'm jealous. I have about 20 or so issues in between 170-295, and even have a tattered copy of a 100(along with a dvd with every issue of tales of suspense until Death of Captain america) but I would love to fill out as much of my collection as possible.

Origin stories are great, and most people aren't fanboys. I'm also annoyed by how often franchises get rebooted, but I understand.

They aren't necessary though. You don't have an origin story for John McLane or James Bond or Indiana Jones. You don't have an origin story for any cop action movie out there. Heck Lord of the Rings origin story came out after the three movies. There is no reason to have an origin story for any action movie ever. Most genres get that. But because "people aren't fanboys" they see a need to create an origin story at the cost of a better movie. Why? If the franchise is successful, you can always create a prequel to go into the origin deeper, but for the most part it isn't necessary, it's a waste of an hour, it necessitates tangled plotlines (villain's origin almost has to be linked to the main character or else there isn't time to develop their character)

Darth Vader was a great character long before he ever had his origin story told. Han Solo still doesn't have an on screen origin story. Martin Riggs origin was told quickly (his wife died, he cracked and doesn't know if he wants to live) and the Lethal Weapon movies were pretty good. Science Fiction movies, action movies, historical action movies all understand that the origin story is not necessary for the characters. It's perfectly ok for them to be fully formed at the start of the movie and provide only enough of an origin as it takes to relate to the characters. Why does comic book movies have to be different?

Again, if the origin is good and the script can make it work well, go for it, if not, ignore it and start the story you want to tell, and assume the audience can keep up with necessary flashbacks. If you can't come up with a good origin story for Wonder Woman that you think will work, forget it. Start it out with her already being an established super hero, with an established group of villains and tell the story you want to tell.

You don't have an origin story for John McLane or James Bond or Indiana Jones.

We saw an origin story for Indiana Jones, but they did it the right way: In a quick five-minute sketch at the start of the third movie. Enough to get anyone who wasn't familiar with the franchise up to speed, but not long enough to bog down or overstay its welcome.

Major Captain America fan here (Have every Cap comic since 1985). The first one was OK, I just wish that the comic book companies would get away from origin stories, there is no more need for them than there is for origin stories for a Die Hard movie. If the origin story is particularly good, then I can see wasting 30 minutes of the film to get it out there, but for something as simple as Cap's origin, a 5 minute flashback in middle of the movie is good enough.

I enjoyed Captain America quite a bit when I took the family to see it. I had no idea what the origins of the story were, because the only comic I ever read was Archie. Though I can't say for sure, I suspect I would have enjoyed the film far less if it had just plopped down in the middle of some Cap'n adventure.

I think the importance of an origin story increases significantly when the protagonist has superpowers and wears a costume. Characters like McLane or Bond or Jones (or countless other examples like the samurai in Yojimbo or the man with no name in the Sergio Leone films, etc.) have exceptional talents but they all involve doing otherwise ordinary things extraordinarily well. When the hero is running around doing impossible things, I think the audience quite naturally wants to know how he or she came about these powers and why he or she chooses to exercise them while wearing a silly uniform.

I had a passing familiarity with Captain America comics as a kid but think I would have been disappointed if the movie (which I enjoyed a great deal) had simply introduced him as a super-strong guy with a shield and taken it from there.

When the hero is running around doing impossible things, I think the audience quite naturally wants to know how he or she came about these powers and why he or she chooses to exercise them while wearing a silly uniform.

This exactly. Batman and Spiderman don't need another origin movie for a long time because they're well past saturation point. That's not the case with Captain America or Iron Man or (ugh) Green Lantern. I'm looking forward to the Antman origin movie.

One thing that a good origin movie does do is redraw the lines for a franchise going forward. Daniel Craig's 007 would have seemed very out-of-place in Roger Moore's 007 universe. A new origin story allows the character to come in fresh, with newly defined boundaries, in a newly redrawn, up-to-date universe. Superman's origin story never needs to be retold again, but the 1978 origin movie was one of the great ones of all time, and set the stage for an even better sequel. Batman Begins didn't tell a new story, but it was still a damn good story, and set up that particular Batman team for a story arc specific to that Batman, that director, in that tone. The problem today isn't that there are origin movies, but that there are so many, and they're rebooting universes too soon.

I have no idea what Superman's origin is now. I know it's been tinkered with seemingly incessantly for quite awhile.

Not really.

Most iconic superheroes origins are always going to be the same. (it's the details that are different. an not really germane to the discussion)

Superman: Born on Krypton, planet dying, ejected to earth, raised by farmers in Smallville Kansas.
Batman: parents are killed going to the movies in which the hero witness their murders.
Spiderman: Granted superhuman abilities due to an altered spider bite. Uncle Ben Dies. "with great power comes great responsibility".
Captain America: 4F patriot who wants to join the fight no matter what subjected to experiment that grants him great power.
Wonder Woman: Amazonian princess from an unknown, secret island that is sent to the U.S. to facilitate relations between the two countries.
Flash: CSI agent who is caught in a fluke explosion in the lab granting superhuman speed.
Green Lantern: Test pilot who is summoned by a dying green lantern due to his ability to overcome great fear and given a power ring.
Thor: Asgardian god who has returned to earth.
(you can also use that for Hercules if you wanted to do a comic book version of him)
Green Arrow: Rich playboy trapped on a deserted island having to fight to survive, realizes that life is more than just money, when rescued decides to do more.
Ant Man: Scientist who discovers size shifting power.... that is it.
Mutants(all): born with superhuman powers decide to do good based upon upbringing...not really that difficult of a story.
Daredevil: Kid irridated with special sauce, gains superhuman abilities, decides to do good. (note: this works for a #### load of characters)

None of these origins require more than a flashback. If the writers/producers think more is necessary that is ok, but it's not a requirement. You can legitimately create a good movie for any successful comic book character without resorting to an origin movie.

This exactly. Batman and Spiderman don't need another origin movie for a long time because they're well past saturation point. That's not the case with Captain America or Iron Man or (ugh) Green Lantern. I'm looking forward to the Antman origin movie.

Really? Imagine a Captain America movie in which it starts out with him in middle of battle in 1944 Germany. You immediately see his competence, his ability with the shield, his strength, his leadership etc... do you really need an origin? Then imagine that you get told the origin in flashback form, where the story takes 5-10 minutes telling you about how hard he tried to get into the military, was rejected, selected for the super soldier program, granted abilities, sabotaged, and his mentor killed... ten minutes top. That is all that is necessary for an origin in flashback, it's enough to get you on board, it's enough to tell you about the character, but it doesn't get bogged down in linear storytelling that slows the movie down.

Where is Gandalf's origin?

Heck, in Lethal Weapon, Mel Gibson characters does a shooting range thing that is, by all accounts impossible where he shoots a smiley face (ask Mark Twain) and we don't have an origin for his superhuman shooting ability. Why is the superhero universe expected to maintain a level of belief that is higher than in any typical cop universe?

Gandalf is a lesser god in the middle earth world (also sauron though he was more powerfull). him and the other wizards are sent there to fight against him with out getting there hands dirty, or just read the more Tolken

Gandalf is a lesser god in the middle earth world (also sauron though he was more powerfull). him and the other wizards are sent there to fight against him with out getting there hands dirty, or just read the more Tolken

Noted exception for other divine beings though. He could fight the Balrog because they were maiar like him. I was always fascinated by the whole universe he created, I think I enjoyed the Sulmirillion more than the LOTR trilogy itself. I wrote my high school English paper on the Sulmirillion as a dramatic retelling of the Biblical creation story (this did not go over well at my Baptist high school, apparently they prefer their messianic figures to have fur coats and roar)

Have you been as irritated as I have at all the people who are irritated at the "extra" stuff in the Hobbit movie?

Yeah, insisting that progress in medical science be impeded for no other reason than "my fake god says so!"-- that not arrogant or ignorant at all.

If you don't believe in God, why do you care so much about medical research? We're all going to die, what difference does it make if some people die sooner. Better not to waste society's resources on the old and sick.

If you don't believe in God, why do you care so much about medical research? We're all going to die, what difference does it make if some people die sooner. Better not to waste society's resources on the old and sick.

Attempt to answer the question yourself. If there is no magical sky castle to play your harp in for eternity if you've been a very good boy, why would you want to make yor single life on earth as healthy, comfortable, and productive as possible? Such a puzzler.

If you don't believe in God, why do you care so much about medical research? We're all going to die, what difference does it make if some people die sooner. Better not to waste society's resources on the old and sick.

Snapper, you know this makes no sense in about ten different ways. Way one: Not all sick people are old. Way two: sick people who become well contribute to society, make money, have children. It goes on. Sticking to faith is one thing, erasing logic is another.

If you don't believe in God, why do you care so much about medical research? We're all going to die, what difference does it make if some people die sooner. Better not to waste society's resources on the old and sick.

One does not need to believe in higher power to have concern for the sick.

But anyway, I appreciate your continued attempts to make the rest of society continue to abide by your Dark Age assumptions about the human body! All the people out there with spinal cord injuries will rest easier knowing that your views have been respected while they continue to not be able to use their limbs.

Snapper, you know this makes no sense in about ten different ways. Way one: Not all sick people are old. Way two: sick people who become well contribute to society, make money, have children. It goes on. Sticking to faith is one thing, erasing logic is another.

A very large % of medical spending in the U.S. goes to people over 65, and beyond that, to a very small % of very sick people.

There is no productivity argument for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on these people. Particularly for the diseases cited in this thread (e.g. Alzheimers, Parkinsons, etc.) the economic upside of treatment is almost nil.

As a society, we subsidize the treatment of these people out of pure charity, b/c we believe something about the dignity of humans. We don't do this for very sick animals; we put them down.

Attempt to answer the question yourself. If there is no magical sky castle to play your harp in for eternity if you've been a very good boy, why would you want to make yor single life on earth as healthy, comfortable, and productive as possible? Such a puzzler.

Yet the people who consume most medical care are either old or very sick, and generally in pain and otherwise suffering. We're really not improving their lives by keeping them alive. Alzheimers patients are the perfect example.

If there is no God, the Peter Singer types are right, we should just put them down, like a sick pet, and save the money.

Eh. Erasing logic for faith does not mean erasing it for every sentence you write on every topic.

I'm sorry, but you are the ones refusing to follow your positions to their logical conclusions.

Your inability to reason logically is amply demonstrated by the fact that you all can't argue your positions without insulting my faith.

If there is no external entity (we don't have to call it God) that gives humans some special value and dignity, if we are purely material animals, then there is no logic in treating humans any different than dogs or cats or cattle.

The Singer types, and the PETA nutjobs are actually more logical. They realize that in the world view you've adopted, there is no place for human exceptionalism. There is no reason to act out of anything but pure self-interest, or utilitarianism.

If there is no external entity (we don't have to call it God) that gives humans some special value and dignity, if we are purely material animals, then there is no logic in treating humans any different than dogs or cats or cattle.

Is that really how they explained it to you in church school? No wonder your morals are so twisted around.

Your inability to reason logically is amply demonstrated by the fact that you all can't argue your positions without insulting my faith.

And again, snapper, pardon?

If there is no external entity (we don't have to call it God) that gives humans some special value and dignity, if we are purely material animals, then there is no logic in treating humans any different than dogs or cats or cattle.

Whether it is called god or not, this is only an assumption. This assumption is logical based on faith, but it is illogical when taken in a context that does not include that faith in said external entity.

Is that really how they explained it to you in church school? No wonder your morals are so twisted around.

No. That's my independent logical conclusion.

Let's take an example. Say I have the choice between saving the life of my cat, or a busload of school children. If I don't believe in God, why would I save the children?

My cat makes my life better. The children do nothing for me. I won't notice if they're gone.

Extend it to 100 million people in China. If I had the choice of losing my pinky, or having them die, a pure materialist should let them die. My pinky is at least somewhat useful to me. I'll never notice the 100 million are gone.

. If there is no external entity (we don't have to call it God) that gives humans some special value and dignity, if we are purely material animals, then there is no logic in treating humans any different than dogs or cats or cattle.

Oh I would say the victims of the Inquisitions were treated worse than dogs or cats. But, you know, only their flimsy corporal bodies. Their souls were purified.

Your inability to reason logically is amply demonstrated by the fact that you all can't argue your positions without insulting my faith.

As long as religious types continue to introduce their faith into conversations about public policy, insulting it is fair game-- "because the invisible man said so" is an argument that should have no bearing on our ability to do research about repairing spinal cord injuries.

As long as religious types continue to introduce their faith into conversations about public policy, insulting it is fair game-- "because the invisible man said so" is an argument that should have no bearing on our ability to do research about repairing spinal cord injuries.

False. Why does it matter where my preference set comes from? Even if God is made up, your preferences and values are equally made up.

If there's no objective truth, we're all just making #### up. It's pure preference whether anything is right or wrong.

Edit: I'm going to play DMB. We've been over this before. You all just can't face that your beliefs are based on faith, as much, or more, than mine. There's no scientific way to decide moral issues.

If I had the choice of losing my pinky, or having them die, a pure materialist should let them die. My pinky is at least somewhat useful to me. I'll never notice the 100 million are gone.

But the choice is not between "invisible man" and "pure materialism."

Your argument reduces belief to an instrument of morality-- we need to believe, not for its own sake,, but because without belief, we will have nihilism. That's a weak argument. Your faith, essentially, serves a utilitarian function, and has no intrinsic value. at least as you've articulated it.

Because you're aware that the deaths of many children would be emotionally devastating to their parents and scores of others. Or because you're aware that among those children, there might be future greatness and saving them might alleviate suffering and/or aid the planet in the future. Or because you read BTF all the time, and have learned that your cat would kill and eat you if it were strong enough. Or maybe just because you know that saving the kids would make you a hero and might get your mug on TV. Any number of reasons.

As an aside, although the guys who do it are mostly guys whom I like, the religion-bashing and Catholic-bashing are often over the top at BTF. But as I have said a few times, BTF is not the Algonquin Round Table, but it is not the yahoo message boards, either. Give and get.

False. Why does it matter where my preference set comes from? Even if God is made up, your preferences and values are equally made up.

This is a good question. Secularism is the answer.

If there's no objective truth, we're all just making #### up. It's pure preference whether anything is right or wrong.

Catholics fought a war against knowledge for over a thousand years, where only a privileged few were allowed to offer truth claims. Secularism was an attempt to free knowledge production from intertwined religious and feudal authorities. You can't just wipe this history away. We can argue about what should and should not be moral. But those arguments, at least in a secular society, have to be grounded in principles that have public assent, arrived at through discursive negotiation. That's step one-- if we don't take it, we're left with perpetual war over scriptural interpretation. You want all of the benefits of secularism without having to pay the cost-- which is simply this: religious beliefs cannot be the grounds for public policy decisions.

You all just can't face that your beliefs are based on faith, as much, or more, than mine.

What I can't face is that you insist on attempting to bring your religion, in all its ugliness, out into the public sphere, even after it has shown time and time again to have no capacity for moral judgement. That's the nature of my beef-- members of a religion that has no problems with its own history of torture, murder, and rape, each of which it did for no other reason than to maintain its own power-- not just lecturing the rest of us on morality, but setting the bounds for scientific research that would improve the lives of the sick. Secularism is a compromise designed to insulate religion from these sorts of critiques-- but you have to hold up your end of the bargain.

Superhero movies: I didn't see Captain America, but I did see Thor, and I thought it worked much better than I would have expected. Hemsworth did a good job, and the CGI Asgaard was fun to look at.

I did not see the Spiderman reboot. I get the whole reboot thing from the painfully obvious economic perspective, but I thought that one was too soon even by those standards. I hope they try Daredevil again; I always liked that character, and I think a good movie could be made about him.

Or because you read BTF all the time, and have learned that your cat would kill and eat you if it were strong enough.

This might be the most useful bit of knowledge I've gained on BTF.

I enjoyed Thor as well-- not brilliant, but didn't try to be, and it captured the spirit of the character nicely. I put Thor and Captain America in the same category-- not as good as the Iron Man films, but I like the characters more, so was happy to see them. Didn't see Spiderman; I will at some point, but am not in a hurry...just seems pointless.

A little off the beaten path: Wanted really disappointed me-- if your only contact with the story was through the film, the comic is worth reading. Same goes for Kick-Ass, though to a lesser extent.

Let's take an example. Say I have the choice between saving the life of my cat, or a busload of school children. If I don't believe in God, why would I save the children?

My cat makes my life better. The children do nothing for me. I won't notice if they're gone.

Extend it to 100 million people in China. If I had the choice of losing my pinky, or having them die, a pure materialist should let them die. My pinky is at least somewhat useful to me. I'll never notice the 100 million are gone.

Yet people don't generally act like this so that stands as proof that religion isn't necessary for people to have morals and act decently.

The problem is that snapper is a sociopath, as far as I can tell, who only behaves well because he has an irrational fear of going to hell. So he assumes that's the only way to motivate people to do good. It's a ridiculous and corrupt view of the universe, but there you have it.

And I'm a little bit stunned that people compliment his deportment in these conversations. He's a self-righteous prig at pretty much every opportunity.

The problem is that snapper is a sociopath, as far as I can tell, who only behaves well because he has an irrational fear of going to hell. So he assumes that's the only way to motivate people to do good. It's a ridiculous and corrupt view of the universe, but there you have it.

And I'm a little bit stunned that people compliment his deportment in these conversations. He's a self-righteous prig at pretty much every opportunity.

Again, insults instead of arguments. Characteristic of those who can not argue their position logically, or don't have a logical position. Ad hominem attacks are the lowest form of discourse.

Apparently you don't recognize the rhetorical techniques of taking things to their logical extreme, or playing devils advocate. I don't actually believe people are mere animals.

I am the furthest thing from a sociopath. I may be a bit of a misanthrope (I don't know why one wouldn't be given the world we inhabit) but I believe people have inherent dignity as creatures of God; even though we all tend towards sin. That is why we should treat each other well, not out of mere fear of Hell, or maudlin sentimentality. Though, we should all fear Hell.

Regardless of their position on this issue (and not comic book movies) who isn't in this thread? There's little actual conversation in this thread, and a bunch of talking past each other because those other dummies just don't get it. My favorite part of the political thread is when we have to discuss whose self-righteousness and insults are truly the worst.

Secularism is a compromise designed to insulate religion from these sorts of critiques-- but you have to hold up your end of the bargain.

Secularism is a religion. It's creed is the individual as the sole arbiter of morality, and to insulate the wealthy and powerful from any moral restraint.

In the area of abortion alone, your faith has more blood on its hands, in the last 50 years, than all the misdeeds committed in the name of my Church in 2000 years. Of course, you conveniently salve your conscience with a Stalin-esque definition of unborn children as "non-persons".

Now back to DMB. cmd600 is correct; there is no conversation going on here. It's a waste of time.

Characteristic of those who can not argue their position logically, or don't have a logical position.

There's an argument there; you opted not to engage with it because doing so is inconvenient. The problem with your argument is that it's easy to flip it, like Voxter and I did.

but I believe people have inherent dignity as creatures of God;

And this is the issue-- you can get all of that without the words "believe" and "creatures of god." I'm not really interested in rehashing this either, I just want your Dark Ages beliefs out of our research labs. So long as you continue attempting to put them there, you open them and the institution from which they were derived up to criticism. You don't get to inject your faith into public discourse, and then state the terms within which people are to engage it.

Secularism is a religion. It's creed is the individual as the sole arbiter of morality, and to insulate the wealthy and powerful from any moral restraint.

But it's not. It's a solution to an impasse. That you refuse to recognize that such an impasse existed is your problem, not mine. What you're advocating for is a permanent state of holy war waged by a theocracy on its enemies both foreign and domestic. Just so we're clear on some basics.

In the area of abortion alone, your faith has more blood on its hands, in the last 50 years, than all the misdeeds committed in the name of my Church in 2000 years.

I know the Catholic church has been too busy working to keep rapey priests raping to be bothered with facts, but even if we grant the premise in your silly book that abortion=murder, this still doesn't come remotely close to being true. And the last 50 years doesn't do your side a lot of favors, either-- you have a lot of blood on your hands for perpetuating the HIV crisis in Africa.

Snapper, you have more patience and restraint than I do. Thank you for speaking truth again, even as you are bombarded with self-satisfied ignorance and arrogance.

Snapper:

If you don't believe in God, why do you care so much about medical research? We're all going to die, what difference does it make if some people die sooner. Better not to waste society's resources on the old and sick.

OK, I'll give you an argument. You say that using adult stem cells for research is OK but pluripotent stem cells are not because pluripotent have the capacity to become human beings while adult stem cells do not.

But you have the science wrong. It has never been shown that you could take a human pluripotent stem cell line and make a human being with it. Even if you were allowed to try, which you aren't by the way because it's illegal, but even if you could, you would have to find a women who is willing to loan her womb for about 8 months, if the experiment worked the first time, which it almost certainly would not. That would be a tough row to hoe.

Second, it is theoretically possible to de-differentiate adult stem cells and create offspring. Dolly the sheep was not made from pluripotent stem cells, you know, it was made from somatic cells of the mammary gland. So, to adopt your ethos, every human living cell is a potential human being that deserves protection from the law.

The idea that adult stem cells are a replacement for pluripotent stem cells in research is not founded on sound scientific principles, it is founded on religious/political theory masquerading as science. There's a lot of that going around these days, and this republic is a lot worse of for it.

Biglou, I havnt seen the Hobbit, but i am excited to see it knowing they used other history from the books to help fill the world it. And indeed it is one of the best books he wrote, the creation of the world and the events that shaped it are interesting, would be worth a movie, plus lots n lots of battles

Attempt to answer the question yourself. If there is no magical sky castle to play your harp in for eternity if you've been a very good boy, why would you want to make yor single life on earth as healthy, comfortable, and productive as possible? Such a puzzler.

The theology doesn't say YR will get into Heaven by being a good boy. YR cannot earn Heaven, as it is infinite, it is eternity. The way into heaven is by admitting you're a bad boy and begging to be forgiven by the only One who can forgive you.

The way into heaven is by admitting you're a bad boy and begging to be forgiven by the only One who can forgive you.

Forgiveness for what exactly? I mean, I've done some thoughtless and selfish things from time to time but nothing that really merits eternal torture. If God is so loving and forgiving, then why would he force you, under threat of torture, to ask forgiveness for paltry transgressions? It seems to me the greater transgression is his, torturing people via eternal damnation merely for lack of sufficient subservience.

Forgiveness for what exactly? I mean, I've done some thoughtless and selfish things from time to time but nothing that really merits eternal torture. If God is so loving and forgiving, then why would he force you, under threat of torture, to ask forgiveness for paltry transgressions? It seems to me the greater transgression is his, torturing people via eternal damnation merely for lack of sufficient subservience.

Well, it's pretty obvious god's is even worse. Isn't he being a bit of a hypocrite, punishing for the same sin he's guilty of in spades?

And if it's so important to him that we extend sufficient fealty to him, what is the purpose of him keeping himself a secret? Surely, since he created us, he knew that there is a large proportion of his creations who are naturally skeptical of grandiose claims. Why did he give us reason if he wanted us to not use it?

Pride is the only sin that belongs on the Top Seven List (or Top One List). Envy would be in the on-deck circle.

The others are too situational to get the big brush stroke. One can pursue the Seven Cardinal Virtues to a bad end (e.g. patience, chastity, charity) just as one can sloth or wrath themselves into oblivion.

Serious question: From what is the fetuses (and apparently embryos as well) are humans viewpoint of religious people derived? Is it from something that's actually in the bible or is it just something that was decided on by somebody in one of the churches at some point and became accepted as a basic article of faith by most Christian religions? Also, how do Muslims and Jews feel about abortion?

Thanks. Tom da Bug is huge. Huge! There really isn't anything better out there. Some as good, but nothing better.

I have told my children (and ex) to do whatever with my mortal remains (since I am done with them),...

How old are you?

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it, but assuming I don't make it to the Singularity and its high-fidelity whole brain emulation I'd give some thought to the digital equivalent of having my head frozen if it meant a shot at immortality. We're talking here about a disc storing several minutes of perfect fidelity, real time, brain MRI. Once you've got that, it's only a matter of time before your consciousness can be re-created.

Your neurons may vary.

I thought it was fun. Not great. I dug Avengers, and am maybe the only person alive who enjoyed the Hulk films. But I went into the with low expectations, and was unbothered by the CGI.

The Avengers showed that the Hulk could work in a movie, if they would just not waste their time with the plodding story and go and have fun with this creature. He's Jeckyll and Hyde, we get it... Now show him smashing stuff, and make sure it's an unambivalent badguy.

Hulk needs a real actor when he's Banner, probably more so than any other superhero 'out of costume' (though Downey showed how much fun a real actor out of uniform could be), to make his pain believable. Bana wasn't that actor, while Norton was. Ruffalo was also that actor.

Btw, one of the best scenes in Avengers was when Ruffalo 'threatened' to turn when he was alone with Johannsen. It needn't be 'an unambivalent badguy' for Hulk's menace to work onscreen.

I think the importance of an origin story increases significantly when the protagonist has superpowers and wears a costume. Characters like McLane or Bond or Jones (or countless other examples like the samurai in Yojimbo or the man with no name in the Sergio Leone films, etc.) have exceptional talents but they all involve doing otherwise ordinary things extraordinarily well. When the hero is running around doing impossible things, I think the audience quite naturally wants to know how he or she came about these powers and why he or she chooses to exercise them while wearing a silly uniform.

Consider, though, how well the Bond 'origin' in the newest Casino Royale worked, both to establish the new Bond's particularly gritty tone and how he became what he became, but more important to give context for the later and effective wrestling he does with 'what's left of his soul' once he's alone with whatshername.